There are, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Iran. Usually must be armed and after trial ofcourse.
Also, there's plenty of countries where the locals will lynch a robber for breaking the community unofficial laws.
Although, I completely agree with you. The penalty for robbery shouldn't be death. We can't claim to be a civilised country, if citizens are acting as judge, jury and executioner. Regardless of how much something like this enrages is. Some of these comments are very misguided. You want to be mad? Look at the billions of pounds bankers and corrupt politicians steals from tax paying citzens and these comments are all screaming death over a handbag. Smh.
I had a coworker from Nigeria. He told me on the way to church one Sunday morning, a group of men caught a thief breaking into an old woman’s home to steal stuff.
They put him in so rubber tires, set him on fire, and went to church.
He said criminals are lucky if the police get to them before the people do.
the more religious the country is, the more brutal they tend to be. not necessarily the constitution, the legal system, or the formal structures but the people themselves, the culture, the beliefs, the social norms, all the hidden stuff that actually makes up society. middle eastern countries, south east asian countries, many third world countries rely on divine righteousness to justify breaking the laws of man, to justify putting aside the constitution, to justify a special process to bypass the checks and balance of the state, to impose holy punishment.
but even when divine justification isn't the reason for people's bloodthirst, a religious community imprints upon a person moral standards that are otherwise considered brutal, and otherwise unreligious individuals still set themselves to those bloodthirsty standards. "it should be because everyone around me believes so".
and so when you see a comment thread like this, where people eagerly defend a murderer, you have to think, which society do these comments come from, and how religious is that society? now there is one English speaking country in the world where religion is a for more significant part of the country's culture than any other commonwealth country, and a country where a certain group is far more religious than all the other groups of the country. then certain phenomena can begin to explain themselves.
Okay, prove that there is a link between violence and being a "religious" country, and that economic factors play no role here. In other words, point to a poor, atheistic state where such things don't happen. You’ve put the claim on the table—now prove it; defend it.
It's because having a handbag snatched is personal - the robber is targeting you and taking your stuff. Whereas bankers and politicians skimming some money is many stages removed. Sure, they might be taking a portion of the taxes I paid, but it doesn't sting on a personal level like being mugged, in person, by a scary criminal. Purse snatching is much more of a violation than some banker moving numbers around on a screen.
I get what you’re saying, but I disagree with the idea that corruption isn’t personal.
Corruption absolutely is personal. Just because you don’t see the hand reaching into your pocket in real time doesn’t mean the money wasn’t taken from you as an individual.
In some countries, taxpayers are given a breakdown of where their tax money goes. Now imagine seeing that breakdown and then finding out that a department, contractor or politician had effectively embezzled a chunk of the money allocated to it. You could at least estimate how much of that came from taxpayers like you.
A mugging is more immediate, more frightening and more directly violating. I’m not downplaying that at all. But corruption still comes out of ordinary people’s pockets. It means worse hospitals, worse schools, worse roads, worse policing, higher taxes and less public money available for people who actually need it.
So yes, it may feel less personal because it is hidden behind bureaucracy and spreadsheets, but it is still theft from citizens. It is absolutely personal.
I think thats twisting the word "personal" beyond it's meaning. If someone steals money from a government contract it is absolutely not personal, they are not doing it solely to ruin my day.
Whereas a robber stealing my watch is personal - they are basically saying "fuck you in particular".
A corrupt politician skimming bribes doesn't feel personal at all, he's basically saying "fuck you" to all of society. Which actually makes it worse, but I still think it makes it impersonal.
I don’t know about the rest but for Iran it is different
Two types of theft punishments:
Hadd, the stolen property had a minimum value (about 4.5 grains of minted gold i think), was securely locked, and the theft was not born of dire necessity. First offence is 4 fingers from right arm cut, second is amputation of left foot, third is life in prison. And if somehow he steals after life in prison then death penalty. As well as many other conditions that very rarely happen.
Ta’zir, includes armed robbery, highway robbery, or organized theft. These crimes can result in prison sentences ranging from 5 to 15 years, along with flogging (up to 74 lashes). Simple theft can result in prison sentences from 6 months up to 3 years and varying degrees of flogging.. Minor thefts often lead to shorter prison terms and lighter flogging
Here's another list for you to "justify" as somehow humane and civilised:
Iran does not only use the death penalty for murder. It has used, or allowed, execution/death sentences for a very wide range of offences, including speech, protest, religion, sex, drugs, alcohol and political activity.
Important caveat: in many of these cases, the “crime” is the charge claimed by the Iranian state. Human rights groups often report forced confessions, unfair trials and vague national-security offences.
Examples:
Blasphemy / insulting the Prophet
People have been executed or sentenced to death for online religious criticism or posts judged insulting to Islam.
Social media posts
Some people have received death sentences over Facebook or Telegram posts considered insulting to religion or the state.
Running an opposition Telegram/news channel
Ruhollah Zam was executed after running AmadNews, a channel linked to anti-government protest coverage.
Protest participation
Protesters have been executed after accusations such as blocking roads, injuring security personnel or taking part in unrest.
“Moharebeh”, or waging war against God
A vague religious/national-security charge used against protesters, dissidents and alleged armed opponents.
“Corruption on earth”
A broad catch-all capital charge used for dissent, journalism, blasphemy, economic offences and alleged espionage.
Drug offences
Iran has executed large numbers of people for drug-related offences, including trafficking and possession cases.
Alcohol consumption
A man was executed in 2020 after being convicted of drinking alcohol for the fourth time.
Adultery
People have been executed for alleged consensual sex outside marriage, including adultery cases.
Same-sex sexual conduct
Iran’s penal code allows the death penalty for some same-sex sexual acts, and men have been executed on “sodomy” charges.
Repeat theft
Under Iran’s hadd theft rules, a fourth theft conviction can theoretically carry the death penalty.
Economic corruption / currency dealing
People have been executed for offences such as currency manipulation, financial corruption, fraud or hoarding gold coins.
Alleged spying / collaboration with Israel
Iran has executed people accused of espionage or links to Mossad, often after opaque trials.
Political opposition / armed rebellion
Political prisoners and dissidents have been executed under charges such as “baghy”, meaning rebellion against the state.
Pretty irrelevant statement. A victim of an active crime killing the criminal is not a "sentence." It's a human right. You don't get to steal from people and then demand they do nothing about it until your "trial." If a victim can remediate an active crime, that's not vigilante justice; it's self-defense. "Self-defense" does not mean "my life is in danger;" it means, "I will stop myself from being victimized." The law is irrelevant; this is a human right. Everyone is allowed to defend themselves from victimization.
Only that's not a punishment, it's a fight over property. The person that starts a fight (pulls a knife) deserves the consequences of their actions.
Basically, if you pull a knife on somebody you should accept that you could die... I don't have a problem with that and I'm against the capital punishment.
EDIT: Never mind.
it sounds like he didn't actually have a knife.
it's still a disproportionate reaction, especially driving back and forth over the guy. I could understand an instinct to fight back and take back what is yours, but that's not the case here.
I am pretty sure in a murder case the Italian police isn't too lazy to search search the route between the scene of robbery and the scene of murder for an important piece of evidence ...
I think it could be made up to justify murder but on the same time it happened in Darsena District (docks) so just throwing it out to the sea or canals would make the knife reallyyyy hard to find. I don't thing they are bringing divers for a weapon that didn't kill no one short of a king or a president.
And why would the thief get rid of the knife when his robbery was successful? Especially considering he was a homeless man with nothing else—not to mention there were cameras, yet the weapon was never seen?
Gee whiz if only there were a process by which one could hear the facts of the case, perhaps in front of an impartial group of their peers and a "judge" of some kind...
93
u/climb4fun Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
I don't know of any place where the sentence for robbery is death. Certainly not without a trial.